Rune, you are super cool! Next time you write something, can you link me up to it?

I've never seen Mormons march in a pride parade. That would make me super happy. Every year I go to pride there are more and more churches, and that just helps to heal old wounds._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

I was really disappointed I wasn't able to make it to the SLC Pride, but there's going to be a closer one soon, too, and we're going to try. And it will utterly scandalize my mom's entire side of the family and have all kinds of fun fallout . . . except for my cousin and his partner. And that's kind of more important right now, I think.

Since you're all getting pretty much getting drunk-dialed by me at this point, I figure I should probably mention that one reason I love this comic so much is that I used to. . . sympathize with the MRAs. I knew that men faced issues, but mis-attributed them to feminists and their mindsets instead of the misogynistic elements that truly birthed them. I'm fixing myself, slower than I'd like, but it's happening. And know that I have room to grow and mature.

As time goes on you will probably see positions reiterated and restated. I will put all restated positions in bold. Seeing a position restated in bold means "This has already been stated to you, and it remains true in a way which you either ignored or misunderstood."

Thy Brilliance wrote:

Question 1: Are you willing to be my friend?
Question 2: Why don't you talk about yourself more often on the forums? I feel as if no one knows anything about you here.
Question 3: Is it true that you know sam from somewhere else, and he frequently invites you to comment during shitstorms?

Full disclosure is very useful to me.

1. I don't befriend people over the internet who say problematic things and refuse or are unable to acknowledge and apologize for them.

2. I share very little about myself on this forum because it has people on it that have been real shitlords with personal information. You, to be frank, are one of them. What you did with Dogen and Usagi are two excellent examples of why I have every reason to understand that this place is not a safe space for the sharing of much of my personal life. Do not ask me to.

3. I know Sam quite well. I will go high five him later. I am not invited to comment during shitstorms, I comment because I see it and I want to. I like when things are operating without shitstorm. I can be content lurking. When people start reliably destroying threads with shitty arguments, my desire for only lurking wanes.

Thy Brilliance wrote:

All my comments stand alone and on their own. Deal with it. And when I say deal with it, I don't mean by shooting the messenger.

Saying this does not make it true. Your comments do not stand alone and on their own. Your history as a poster and the multiple times in which you have been caught lacking credibility or acting intellectually dishonest about a subject (or, again, the multiple times you have done something or acted in a way which caused people to rightfully look down at you) all apply to how people are going to respond to your posts. You have a history. You have proven you aren't credible, and people don't consider you credible. Telling people to "deal with it" doesn't fix your position lacking credibility, nor are others obligated to "deal with it". You are actually the one who has to deal with your history of behavior which has resulted in the fair-minded loss of your credibility to others.

Quote:

You are baiting me into a framework you didn't even bother to expand or elucidate for me. Of course I want clarification.

Plainly said: whether or not you intended it to be, your statement was not innocuous and other people are not starting shit "for no reason at all". You've made it clear that you either don't understand why, or you think that your history as a poster and your various missteps and misdeeds should have no bearing on the reception of an individual post. This will never happen and it is useless to demand for yourself.

Quote:

Yes. This is a thing. No, you aren't insane if you are aware it is a thing, you are knowledgeable about things like permissive resignation.

Quote:

Ah yes, Permissive resignation, I know the phrase well.

It's the type of phrase that shows up in a 1930's essay about the "miseducation of the negroes". It describes a very condescending viewpoint of the general feelings of these so called "negroes"

I believe the overall sentiment those "negroes" expressed was something along the lines of "At least our level of education is better than it was before."

The phrase was used in such a manner as to criticize why those "negroes" were not in fact outraged by the fact that their level of education was so poor.

Pray tell, how does that even remotely apply here?

How does this even remotely apply here?

It doesn't. You literally just googled "permissive resignation" and clicked on the first link and talked about it as if what I am talking about has anything to do with what you found there when researching my use of those two words, and then you decided that a 1930's sentiment criticizing negroes must be relevant to it.

Obviously (or, it would be obvious to most other participants), this has nothing to do with why I would advance that permissive resignation is a means of accommodating problematic behavior. It's just what you found on google and tried to attach to the discussion.

Heh, fantastic. I *just* rewatched Dr. No last night, and was thinking about the XKCD-Rainman strip with Bond counting the other guy's bullets. Forgot about the Archer line, though..._________________“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

It doesn't. You literally just googled "permissive resignation" and clicked on the first link and talked about it as if what I am talking about has anything to do with what you found there when researching my use of those two words, and then you decided that a 1930's sentiment criticizing negroes must be relevant to it.

Obviously (or, it would be obvious to most other participants), this has nothing to do with why I would advance that permissive resignation is a means of accommodating problematic behavior. It's just what you found on google and tried to attach to the discussion.

It's actually the second link. I had to google it too!_________________

OMG! Thy's a robot! Seriously, that comic is a scarily appropriate summation of all of your interactions with Thy, just replace cats with whatever the given topic is._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Last edited by Darqcyde on Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:24 am; edited 1 time in total

As time goes on you will probably see positions reiterated and restated. I will put all restated positions in bold. Seeing a position restated in bold means "This has already been stated to you, and it remains true in a way which you either ignored

or misunderstood."

Thy Brilliance wrote:

Question 1: Are you willing to be my friend?
Question 2: Why don't you talk about yourself more often on the forums? I feel as if no one knows anything about you here.
Question 3: Is it true that you know sam from somewhere else, and he frequently invites you to comment during shitstorms?

Full disclosure is very useful to me.

1. I don't befriend people over the internet who say problematic things and refuse or are unable to acknowledge and apologize for them.

2. I share very little about myself on this forum because it has people on it that have been real shitlords with personal information. You, to be frank, are one of them. What you did with Dogen and Usagi are two excellent examples of why I have every reason to

understand that this place is not a safe space for the sharing of much of my personal life. Do not ask me to.

3. I know Sam quite well. I will go high five him later. I am not invited to comment during shitstorms, I comment because I see it and I want to. I like when things are operating without shitstorm. I can be content lurking. When people start reliably destroying threads

with shitty arguments, my desire for only lurking wanes.

Thy Brilliance wrote:

All my comments stand alone and on their own. Deal with it. And when I say deal with it, I don't mean by shooting the messenger.

Saying this does not make it true. Your comments do not stand alone and on their own. Your history as a poster and the multiple times in which you have been caught lacking credibility or acting intellectually dishonest about a subject (or, again, the multiple

times you have done something or acted in a way which caused people to rightfully look down at you) all apply to how people are going to respond to your posts. You have a history. You have proven you aren't credible, and people don't consider you

credible. Telling people to "deal with it" doesn't fix your position lacking credibility, nor are others obligated to "deal with it". You are actually the one who has to deal with your history of behavior which has resulted in the fair-minded loss of your credibility to

others.

Quote:

You are baiting me into a framework you didn't even bother to expand or elucidate for me. Of course I want clarification.

Plainly said: whether or not you intended it to be, your statement was not innocuous and other people are not starting shit "for no reason at all". You've made it clear that you either don't understand why, or you think that your history as a poster and your various

missteps and misdeeds should have no bearing on the reception of an individual post. This will never happen and it is useless to demand for yourself.

Quote:

Yes. This is a thing. No, you aren't insane if you are aware it is a thing, you are knowledgeable about things like permissive resignation.

Quote:

Ah yes, Permissive resignation, I know the phrase well.

It's the type of phrase that shows up in a 1930's essay about the "miseducation of the negroes". It describes a very condescending viewpoint of the general feelings of these so called "negroes"

I believe the overall sentiment those "negroes" expressed was something along the lines of "At least our level of education is better than it was before."

The phrase was used in such a manner as to criticize why those "negroes" were not in fact outraged by the fact that their level of education was so poor.

Pray tell, how does that even remotely apply here?

How does this even remotely apply here?

It doesn't. You literally just googled "permissive resignation" and clicked on the first link and talked about it as if what I am talking about has anything to do with what you found there when researching my use of those two words, and then you decided that a

1930's sentiment criticizing negroes must be relevant to it.

Obviously (or, it would be obvious to most other participants), this has nothing to do with why I would advance that permissive resignation is a means of accommodating problematic behavior. It's just what you found on google and tried to attach to the

discussion.

Eiden Eiden Eiden, you don't seem to get it. That's just my fancy smancy way of telling you that your lawyer-speak is outdated, the fact that the article from the 1930s is one of the top results SHOULD WORRY YOU. I empashized another politically incorrect and

outdated term FOUR TIMES, I figured that would hammer the message through your skull very directly.

I'm saying you're out of touch, and you are in no position to judge others.

Eiden, it is quite clear to me that you have no idea what my thought processes are, or why I post what I post.

You've also essentially admitted that you are plainly biased against me in favor of sam, and as a result you can no longer claim any objective viewpoint that can be taken seriously.

Furthermore, your words simply do not have much sway here, simply because you choose to be distant from the forum itself, only posting to scorn others. You clearly aren't as invested in this forum as others are.

And don't give me that crap about not feeling safe to post personal info here, you don't post anything about yourself, even non personal info, like a song you happened to be listening to, or god forbid a harmless hobby.
You literally come here to argue.

But let's talk about why we're here.

Here is the post that sam seemed to have a problem with.

Thy Brilliance wrote:

Sam wrote:

after digging around back to the start of when sinfest started becoming a political feminist work i did end up noting its second-waviness (yes there has now been an in depth sociology discussion about sinfest what have i

done) so please note that my response to sinfest re: pron is a completely separate argument than what I would have about what I would consider the current debate about porn.

It started being a political feminist work around the same time that tat lost his girlfriend.

You're reading too much into this.

You of course conveniently chose to ignore answering why this statement is anything but a benign statement in this thread.

Btw, this isn't insider info whatsoever, because if you actually read the sinfest comic, you would notice that tat EXPLICITLY STATES THIS.

In other words, because I'm not sure you'll understand this unless I say it explicitly, it is me who is accommodating you simply for taking the time to reject your ridiculous accusations.

What you are seeing right now is the righteous fury of a man that has extended the olive branch multiple times to those who would scorn him.

Every day is a fresh start for a carefree personality.

Guilt by Association is a fallacy Eiden. The fact that you freely associate with your past selves means that you simply don't have the ambition to improve yourself greatly every single day.

Quite frankly speaking, I'm not limited by whatever has happened in the past, because I understand humans to be dynamic beings. You and sam might consider yourselves static, but don't push that impression onto anybody else.

"And therefore much laughter at the defects of others, is a sign of pusillanimity. For of great minds, one of the proper works is, to help and free others from scorn; and to compare themselves only with the most able." - Hobbes

Oh, Thy. I think the biggest bomb shell, other than the phrase 'lawyer-speak' is that you think Eiden is not a member of the community because they post so little. Buddy, I and I assume most other folks think she's a great poster. Sadly, seeing your name as the last poster just makes me sad.

You have to go away, Thy. You have to go._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

Eiden Eiden Eiden, you don't seem to get it. That's just my fancy smancy way of telling you that your lawyer-speak is outdated, the fact that the article from the 1930s is one of the top results SHOULD WORRY YOU. I empashized another politically incorrect and

outdated term FOUR TIMES, I figured that would hammer the message through your skull very directly.

I'm saying you're out of touch, and you are in no position to judge others.

Your "fancy smancy" way of telling me that my "lawyer-speak" (this is a perfect example of the sort of thing you say in response to other people which causes them to tilt their head and go "what is he talking about") is outdated does not worry me because --

1. It is not lawyer speak! It is actually a simple presentation of words which describe a social phenomenon.

2. If you thought that this point you have now was in any way conveyed by the words that you used, all it means is that you speak in a way which is only comprehensible to yourself and then looks very illegitimate and probably even nonsensical because what you just said does not convey, to others, what you think it means. You cannot force others to simply accept your current standard of incomprehensibility, but you are trying to right here. I'll let you in on a very important secret: even if you do not understand why, this will never work!

When this happens as reliably as it happens with you (and really, it happens all the time with you!) you continue to not have grounds to be considered credible in your interpretation and judgment of others. They'll respond to what your language generally actually conveys, but when it does not match up to the weird idea you have or make up in your head, you berate them for not having a magical English to Thy's Head dictionary. This is really seriously not a good idea, and yet you do not understand it.

Quote:

Eiden, it is quite clear to me that you have no idea what my thought processes are, or why I post what I post.

YES. EXACTLY. You have almost stumbled onto realizing what you are missing that people have tried to convey to you many times over the course of literal years! THINK ABOUT THIS.

You generally DO NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL in a lot of arguments. People NOTE THIS ABOUT YOU. They note that you go off on often absurd tangents and inexplicable bits of "logic" which fail to connect to what was being said before. Nobody knows why you post what you post! Much of the time nobody knows where you're going with anything, either! It is not the fault of the observers in this case, and you will note (!) that it is very different from people claiming that they understand your thought processes are.

Quote:

You've also essentially admitted that you are plainly biased against me in favor of sam, and as a result you can no longer claim any objective viewpoint that can be taken seriously.

I did not know you lived on a world in which if I know one person better than you, I cannot have an opinion of you which is capable of being "taken seriously". I suppose on this world it gives you plenty of excuses to assume nobody can fairly judge something as simple as, say, your posting on an internet forum.

(your statement is also rather false on its face, because plenty of people are going to take my opinion of you rather seriously, if they agree that I'm pretty reasonably laying out some correct points about you in things like this)

Quote:

Furthermore, your words simply do not have much sway here, simply because you choose to be distant from the forum itself, only posting to scorn others. You clearly aren't as invested in this forum as others are.

I don't need to be. You don't determine whether or not my words have "much sway". As a point of fact, you will observe that between you and me, people on this forum generally trust me over you, and like me over you. That's not to say that as some sort of popularity contest, it's just noting through existing circumstances how completely incorrect and irrelevant your statement is.

I don't have to be deeply emotionally invested in and bare my soul to the forum to be considered credible. I just have to make credible statements and logical arguments and not do things which harm my credibility. No matter how much more "invested" you are in the forum, you have made statements which have obliterated your credibility with most people on this forum, and you have done and said things which are so incredibly rude and shitty that you aren't well liked and even the people who are trying to be sympathetic to you have noticed how inescapably burned your reputation is and how being here is doing you no favors and that you keep doing really bad things.

Quote:

And don't give me that crap about not feeling safe to post personal info here, you don't post anything about yourself, even non personal info, like a song you happened to be listening to, or god forbid a harmless hobby.

Even if this were true -- it is not -- this is a very silly position to take. I already explained why I don't post personal details about myself here. I've seen what you have done with personal information, in particular. I'm sure you would like to have personal information about me so that you could analyze me like you have tried to do to others in ways which were correctly regarded as rude and nonsensical.

Quote:

You of course conveniently chose to ignore answering why this statement is anything but a benign statement in this thread.

I do not "conveniently chose (sp) to ignore answering". The answer is actually pretty straightforward: especially given your history, but even without it, telling someone that they are reading too much into something is not necessarily benign. Perhaps you intended it to be benign. Intent is not a magical indemnification from a person's actual tone and problematic history, and no -- you don't get to tell people to ignore your history and "deal with it".

Quote:

Btw, this isn't insider info whatsoever, because if you actually read the sinfest comic, you would notice that tat EXPLICITLY STATES THIS.

The comic is not providing a timeframe in which the ex is coming from. The ex he is referencing could be from the day before the comic was drawn, or ten years. He is not, actually, explicitly stating anything you are suggesting. You should acknowledge this and adjust your statements of fact accordingly.

Quote:

In other words, because I'm not sure you'll understand this unless I say it explicitly, it is me who is accommodating you simply for taking the time to reject your ridiculous accusations.

Ah! Excellent. We have proof that you really did not have an understanding of what it would mean if others are asked to accommodate you. Permissive resignation would be like if you are a poster on a forum where you frequently degenerate into extremely derailing and rather surreal flights of ridiculousness, and when it seems like any opportunity for you to be persuaded to regulate your own behavior and not act in ways which reasonably offend and annoy people are exhausted, people start saying that perhaps we should just act and talk around you, ignore you, and just try not to "set you off". Essentially, start holding each other responsible for your behavior in lieu of your inability to self-regulate. You are in no way "accommodating" the forum by rejecting my accusations. You were pretty way off on this one!

Quote:

What you are seeing right now is the righteous fury of a man that has extended the olive branch multiple times to those who would scorn him.

Guilt by Association is a fallacy Eiden. The fact that you freely associate with your past selves means that you simply don't have the ambition to improve yourself greatly every single day.

.. and now you are just freeform rambling about some sort of idea you are invested in and it is literally not at all relevant to anything I or you were talking about before, ..

Quote:

Quite frankly speaking, I'm not limited by whatever has happened in the past, because I understand humans to be dynamic beings. You and sam might consider yourselves static, but don't push that impression onto anybody else.

... excellent, excellent, so today when you went off the handle you exposed a little bit of the quirky rationale behind your internal nonsensical request not to have your reputation matter at all anytime you say something that adds to that reputation.

I like what happens when you try to apply this logic in the real world. Let's say I walk up to Dogen and I call him a withering cunt, and a juggalo. Then the next day I go to him and say "hey man, nice weather we're having". and Dogen says "dude, fuck off, I don't like you".

SHOCKED and AGHAST, I ask him WHY he has such an unreasonable opinion of me. He reminds me that yesterday I was a crazy dick to him. And to this I tut-tut and finger wag him and go "Oh, but Dogen, I'm a follower of Thy-ology. You can't hold my reputation against me! I'm not limited by whatever has happened in the past. I understand myself to be DYNAMIC BEINGS. These are MAGIC WORDS that make it so that I am above that sort of thing."

And Dogen rolls his eyes at me and goes off to hang out with people who don't descend into crazy metaphysical garbage that they use to mentally write off any sense of accountability towards their past behavior towards individuals. The next day when I walk into his house because we should still totally be willing to be BEST CHUMS, he has me arrested! (how unfair! what a static being!) !! My defense to the judge the next day is that the home invasion occurred in the past and I am not limited by the past. By this point, any reasonable person has legitimately been able to wrap their heads around why this whole "I'm not limited by whatever has happened in the past" thing is not actually true of anything in human experience and is actually kind of a terribly offensive concept. But since I'm really into it, I stick to my guns and start rambling kind of incoherently and quoting spurious passages from Hobbes as if it was reverentially connected to

Quote:

"And therefore much laughter at the defects of others, is a sign of pusillanimity. For of great minds, one of the proper works is, to help and free others from scorn; and to compare themselves only with the most able." - Hobbes

Yes! Yes. Like that, exactly. And then I will go on a righteous crusade demeaning people for calling me out for things I don't recognize ..

Yes! Exactly. Just like that. You have this perfect. I'll just let you continue onward until you get it out of your system ...

Quote:

You're just here to get a rise out of Thy, and play a little tag team debating against a one man army.

Even when I'm not here, you just turn on yourselves like goddamn piranha. That argument with TIAB sure was awkward.

I've apologized personally to both Dogen and Usagi, and I have great respect for them.

I won't apologize to those who don't deserve it.

There. Okay. Do you feel better now? I'm glad.

Quote:

You're a real asshole Eiden, you deliberately waited a number of days for the forum drama to die down just to start shit up again.

No, I didn't. If you are insinuating that I waited to make this post just so I could stir up drama again, that's completely factually inaccurate. I just replied as soon as I had time to make a reply, because I said I did. It is a good thing I did not actually do what you think I did, and I maintain my status as not an asshole.

Quote:

You coulda just pm'd me. I sense no good will from you.

That is because you very straightforwardly do not really see good will even when people are going out of their way to offer it to you. Not that I am a great standard of good will (I, more than anything, just want to see if it is possible to productively patiently explain the failure of your expectations of self and others here) but when others have offered it, you still see it however you want to, and this is usually with quite a big degree of erroneousness.

Anyway, I'm off to continue apparently not being a part of the community.

Please think about what I said, even if the end result is going to be more of your "righteous fury".

Eiden, it is quite clear to me that you have no idea what my thought processes are, or why I post what I post.

YES. EXACTLY. You have almost stumbled onto realizing what you are missing that people have tried to convey to you many times over the course of literal years! THINK ABOUT THIS.

You generally DO NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL in a lot of arguments. People NOTE THIS ABOUT YOU. They note that you go off on often absurd tangents and inexplicable bits of "logic" which fail to connect to what was being said before. Nobody knows why you post what you post! Much of the time nobody knows where you're going with anything, either! It is not the fault of the observers in this case, and you will note (!) that it is very different from people claiming that they understand your thought processes are.

I'm in full agreement with this.

Does anybody (other than Thy) disagree?

This is a huge part of my problem with Thy, and another huge part is that he seems intent on changing the meaning of his words after he's said them just to avoid admitting that somebody really did get them right the first time. His "conversations" are usually a huge retcon, reacting to what the other person is saying only to distance himself from their point.
I feel that way because it's hard to believe that his thoughts are really so alien that everybody is constantly wrong about them. Worse than random chance. It just doesn't work out that way, so it's hard not to conclude that he's doing it on purpose (whether he recognizes it or not).